Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside
Full Text
Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order:
Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit supporting such application, a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interests of justice:
Provided further that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party.
Plain English Summary
Provides for discharging, varying, or setting aside an injunction order; mandates vacation of ex parte orders obtained via false or misleading statements (First Proviso), and bars reconsideration of bi-parte orders absent a change in circumstances or undue hardship (Second Proviso).
Key Legal Elements
- Vacation / Variation Application: Procedural remedy available to dissatisfied party to seek modification or recall of injunction.
- First Proviso — Mandatory Vacation for Misrepresentation: Knowing falsehood or misleading statement in ex parte application mandates automatic vacation.
- Second Proviso — Rigour on Bi-Parte Orders: An order passed after hearing both parties cannot be re-opened except on (a) Change in circumstances, or (b) Undue hardship.
- Interplay with Section 115 and Appeals: An order under Rule 4 is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).
- Substituted by 1976 Amendment: Two provisos were inserted to eliminate vexatious review of bi-parte orders and penalize perjury.
Practical Note
Strategic Invocation of Provisos to Rule 4: 1. First Proviso (Falsehood Vitiates Ex Parte Order): In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 398, the Supreme Court established that non-disclosure of a material document or a misleading statement in the injunction affidavit disentitles the plaintiff to equitable relief. Under the first proviso, the court has a statutory duty to vacate the ex parte injunction without entering into the merits. 2. Second Proviso (Change in Circumstances): In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 993), it was held that interlocutory orders made after hearing both sides operate as res judicata at subsequent stages of the same suit. A party cannot seek variation of a bi-parte injunction order merely by changing advocates; a concrete, supervening change in circumstances or demonstrable undue hardship must be proven.
हिंदी पाठ
व्यादेश का कोई भी आदेश ऐसे आदेश से असंतुष्ट किसी भी पक्षकार द्वारा न्यायालय को आवेदन किए जाने पर न्यायालय द्वारा उन्मोचित (Discharged), परिवर्तित (Varied) या अपास्त (Set aside) किया जा सकेगा:
परंतु यदि अस्थायी व्यादेश के किसी आवेदन में अथवा ऐसे आवेदन के समर्थन में किसी शपथपत्र में किसी पक्षकार ने किसी तात्विक तथ्य (Material particular) के संबंध में जानबूझकर कोई मिथ्या या भ्रामक कथन किया है और व्यादेश विरोधी पक्षकार को सूचना दिए बिना मंजूर किया गया था, तो न्यायालय व्यादेश को विखंडित (Vacate) कर देगा, जब तक कि लेखबद्ध किए जाने वाले कारणों से वह यह न समझे कि न्याय के हित में ऐसा करना आवश्यक नहीं है:
परंतु यह और कि जहां किसी पक्षकार को सुनवाई का अवसर दिए जाने के पश्चात व्यादेश का कोई आदेश पारित किया गया है, वहां उस आदेश को उस पक्षकार के आवेदन पर तब तक उन्मोचित, परिवर्तित या अपास्त नहीं किया जाएगा जब तक कि ऐसा उन्मोचन, परिवर्तन या अपास्त किया जाना परिस्थितियों में परिवर्तन (Change in circumstances) के कारण आवश्यक न हो गया हो, अथवा जब तक कि न्यायालय का यह समाधान न हो जाए कि उस आदेश से उस पक्षकार को असम्यक कठिनाई (Undue hardship) हुई है।